Reply to a Book, Reply · Part 22
His Anſwer to the 22. Section examined, containing a wrighting, firſt left with a freind or two, and afterwards, without my conſent or knowledge, printed
MY defence of Anſwering his untrue reports, in my wrighting, and of having it in the hands of one or two freinds, that might ſpeake in the cauſe of the dumbe, & maintaine myne innocency, in my abſence, the Reader ſhall find in my reply to the ſecond Section. Now, the cavills which are to be found in this Section againſt that wrighting are to be examined. Firſt. It is an injury to call that wrighting injurious which was a neceſſary declaration of the truth againſt ſlanders, which were, firſt ſecretly ſpread abroad by him, in private ſpeech, afterwards, by a large letter which he ſent to his frend at N. in England, & now are by him ſcandalouſly publiſhed, not only againſt me (ego enim non ſum tanti) but againſt men of eminent worth and noate, both living and dead.
Secondly. How juſtly that wrighting is called a true report of paſſages, the Reader will ſee, by comparing what is ſayd, on both ſides, and how unjuſtly he excepteth againſt that title.
Thirdly. When I aſſured the Reader that this Engliſh copy is a true tranſlation out of the latine, by, this Engliſh copy, I meant not which is printed. For there are diverſe faults in that, & it appeareth to have bene printed out of a very imperfect copy, but that which I wrote. As for his exception againſt it, that having twiſe uſed that odious phraſe [pro imperio] imperiouſly; in the ſecond place it is left out, in my tranſlation.
Repl: The phraſe is but a true expreſſion of the thing, let the odious thing be mended, and the odious phraſe ſhall not be uſed. In the meane ſpace the expreſſion muſt be ſuitable to the action. For is it not [actus imperij] an imperious act, to deny a man convenient time for ſatiſfaction about a matter of ſuch conſequence, and to bind a man to obſerve cuſtoms and orders, without ſhewing the aequity thereof? Some would have called ſuch an act tyranny and ſo ſhall I, upon further provocation. 2. As the uſe of the phraſe is condemned, ſo the omitting of it once in the tranſlation is reproved. Forgive me that wrong. I thought he would ſee how unwilling I was to faſten their imperious dealing with me, upon the Readers apprehenſion, by repeating the word imperiouſly againe. But let it ſtand, in this ſecond place alſo, ſeing the Anſwerer will have it ſo, and he ſhall find me, with Gods aſſiſtance, prove it to be a fit expreſſion. 3. Is my tranſlation untrue, becauſe this word is once omitted? Let the learned Reader judge, whether it be neceſſary to the truth of a tranſlation, that every latine word be rendred into Engliſh, eſpecially when the ſenſe giveth it ſufficiently in the ſentence. If this be not to ſeeke a knott in a bulruſh, I know not what is.
Fourthly. In my firſt wrighting how unable the Anſwerer is to diſcover any untruth (in my report of the private conference betweene us) the Reader will ſee by my examination of his Sect: 11. in my Reply, and will be further cleared hereafter.
Fifthly. In my ſecond wrighting he ſeemeth to find a foule untruth or falſification (after his uſuall manner of expreſsing himſelfe) both in the ſuperſcription, and ſubſcription thereof. But what is it? I ſayd that thoſe inſtructions were delivered by the Elders of the Engliſh Church deputed. But 1, that tranſlation ſayth not by the Elders, but to the Elders, and that both in the ſuperſcription and in the ſubſcription. Is it not ſtrange that he ſhould then falſifye the tranſlation, when he complaineth, of falſification in the tranſlatour? 2. ſuppoſe it had bene to the Elders deputed, and that by Elders, I meant any lawfully deputed by the Elderſhip; yet I ſpake and wrote truely. For I left the wrighting with Mr. W. who was deputed before by the Elderſhip, (having alſo told Mr. Wh: of it) praying him to communicate it with the reſt, that one or two Elders that ſhould be deputed by the reſt, might preſent it to the Claſſis, and, having reſpect unto that agreement with them, I uſed that expreſſion, before the meeting, in confidence that it would have bene ſo ordered by them. Now, if no ſuch deputation was made afterwards, what is that to me, who ſtiled the Elder by that title which beſt expreſſed my purpoſe, and expectation? neither was I in towne to alter it afterwards, nor did I ever heare, that no deputation was made in the Conſiſtory, till now.) The iſſue of all this deepe accuſation, what is it now, but, as when a great expectation was of the mountaines birth, which was fained to be with child, after which nothing appeared but a litle mouſe running thence? How juſt the complaint is alſo of his want of brotherly moderation, I have noated in my reply to his Sect. 12.
Sixtly. In that which he ſpeaketh concerning my third wrighting, he multiplyeth injuries.
1. In miſreporting my intent in the three wrightings, which was, not to make him odious to the Claſſis, nor to teach the Elders how to fill their mouthes with reproach of him, nor, to ſtirr up and incenſe the Congregation againſt him, but ingenuouſly and candidly to report the truth, whereunto I was called, and compelled, for the neceſſary clearing of my ſelfe, & for the remove all, in ſome, and prevention, in others, of cauſeles praejudices, and jealouſyes, which already did, or, by my ſilence, might ariſe in their minds againſt me, by his ſuggeſtions: Would the wrighting of thoſe things, accuſe, undermine, and defame him? It is a ſigne that his cauſe is not very good. And, if my wrighting thoſe particulars be a fault, who is to blamed for it, but he who conſtrained me thereunto?
2. In charging me with unjuſt uprayding of him, for myne aſſiſtance of him, and with a vaine boaſting of my ſelfe. To convince him of ill requiting me, yea of rewarding evill for good, I remembred what labour and patience I had excerciſed for his and the Churches peace. This was no uprayding, much leſſe unjuſt, nor vaine boaſting, but a juſt declaration of the truth (the caſe requiring it) and a ſad complaint of his unthanckfullnes. How he hath anſwered it, will appeare in the examination of Sect. 2. 8. and 40. Whereunto as he referreth the Reader, ſo doe I, and alſo to Sect. 11. and 14. that it may appeare how juſtly I complaine of the two injuryes which he noateth. Alſo concerning the five objections anſwered by me in that third wrighting I doe concurr with him in referring the Reader to the Sections mentioned by him, and examined by me.
where it appeareth that
the firſt
the ſecond
the third
the fourth
the fifth
is not refuted but remaineth unanſwered in
Sect. 14.
Sect. 15.
Sect. 15.
Sect. 10.
Sect. 18.
in like manner concerning my ſix reaſons to prove that he never deſired to have me to be his colleague, of which reaſons the
firſt
ſecond
third
fourth
fifth
ſixth
is not anſwered in
Sect. 9.
Sect 8.
Sect. 17.
Sect. 12.
Sect. 28.
Sect. 6.
Seaventhly. In that which he addeth, upon the grant of this ſuppoſition, that he had not deſired me, diverſe things are conſiderable. 1. His unjuſt accuſation of me (by way of intimation) as if I did quaraile and contend with him, becauſe he did not deſire me] whereas it is neither ſo, nor ſo. For neither was it my intent, in that wrighting, to quaraile, but to anſwer objections, nor did I blame him at all for not deſiring me (for he may uſe his liberty, for me, to place his deſires upon a more deſireable object) but for pretending his deſire to have me with him, when he did really hinder my ſetling there. 2. His Sarcaſticall inſultation, when he tauntingly demandeth, Is he ſuch a man of deſire &c.] Reply 1. It ſeemeth that I am not ſuch a man of deſire, in his account, yet, in the eſteeme of that Church, and of the Claſsis, how unworthy ſoever I am in my ſelfe, it ſeemeth, I am; Elſe, how comes it to paſſe, that they account themſelves ſo injuried by his oppoſing and rejecting me (as appeareth in their complaints) and that theſe ſo much deſired that I might be promoted to the miniſtry of that Church,Sect: 12.16.19. as he hath formerly teſtifyed? 2. If I am not ſuch a man of deſire, in his account, yet J ſhould not be ſuch a man of ſcorne and contempt, to be ſo trampled upon in a ſtrange land, and expoſed to reproach, and that by a brother, and in print, whereby I am now become a man of ſorrowes, and that in many reſpects. 3. His voluntary conceſſion, or acknowledgment (by way of ſuppoſition and intimation) that he withheld his deſire from me, in the act of Election, is conſiderable. For, if, when his voyce went with the reſt for myne election, he withheld his deſire from me; how can it be thought, that he did at all deſire me? For did he give his vote for me? Did he ſubſcribe my call with his owne hand in that wrighting, whereof himſelfe was the penman? Did he himſelfe, accompanyed with one of the Elders, bring it to me, and pray me to accept of it? And yet did he withhold his deſire from me, in the act of election? No marvayle then, if he held me ſo to this queſtion. No marvayle, that he refuſed the meanes propounded by me for accommodation. No marvayle, that he procured that wrighting of the five miniſters (howſoever by ſome of them intended in favour of me, they thincking that he ſaught to accommodate me, but) which he made uſe of to ſtrengthen himſelfe againſt me. No marvayle, that it was procured to be ratifyed by the Claſſis and Magiſtrates, that I ſhould reſt in it, and conforme thereunto. No marvayle, that an order which the Elders would have made in Conſiſtory, to ſecure me from trouble for that, was hindred by him, and that the convenient time, which they agreed upon to allow me, for ſatiſfaction, was denyed by him. No marvayle, that other uſages (which I forbeare to mention) of me have bene ſo unbrotherly (that I ſay no more) if he did not deſire me. 4. Jn the ſame way of ſuppoſition and intimation he ſeemeth to ſay, that he was for another whom he might judge to be more lowly &c. 1. This I complaine not of as an injury to me, but I wiſh that he may both have ſuch an one to be with him, and may be ſuch an one himſelfe, as he there deſcribeth, if he judge of theſe properties by a right rule. As for me: I ſhall account him the moſt lowly, who with moſt ſelfe-denyall takes upon him Chriſts yoake, and him moſt loving, whoſe ſpirit cloſeth moſt ſtrongly with all good men, in all good wayes, and him to be moſt faythfull and upright, who doeth moſt excerciſe himſelfe to have a conſcience in all things voyd of offence, both towards God, and towards man. In this ſenſe he might have had men lowly, loving, faythfull, and upright, whom the Church deſired, but injoy not, to their great greife, and loſſe, 2. It had bene more brotherly dealing to have admoniſhed me in private (if he had diſcerned any thing in me contrary to thoſe properties) rather then thus to traduce me in print, or, if he would publiſh ſuch accuſations, to have proved them to be juſt, and not thus, without proofe, to reproach me. 3. The five Reverend Dutch preachers did not apprehend him to have ſuch praejudices againſt me, when they compoſed that wrighting which himſelfe hath tranſlated, according to their words, and publiſhed, where ſpeaking of me, they ſay, whom, for diverſe reſpects there mentioned, we underſtand to be moſt deare unto Mr. P. It ſeemeth they were miſtaken in their opinion of the Anſwerers love to me, if his thoughts of me then were according to this wrighting. 4. Himſelfe ſubſcribed the wrighting wherein I was called to the miniſtry in that Church (which alſo was ſubſcribed by all the Elders and Deacons) wherein they thus expreſſe their eſteeme of me, in the feare of God having conſidered of ſuch as might be fit thereunto, we have ſet our eyes upon you &c. being perſuaded of your ſufficiency, learning, and piety, hoping alſo, that, through thoſe gifts of the ſpirit wherewith the Lord hath indued you, and wherein we have received much contentmēt, you may be a ſpeciall inſtrument of building up the Church of God by your godly labours amongſt us. This wrighting was penned by himſelfe, and his owne name ſubſcribed with his owne hand, wherein my fitnes for that place is ſo teſtifyed, that it may ſeeme ſtrange how one & the ſame man ſhould privatly wright that, and yet publiſh this.
Eigthly. When he ſayth, It is certainely a want of modeſty and prudence in him, to make ſuch diſputes about his owne deſireablenes. Anſ: 1. I onelyonly ſhew the reaſons of myne opinion that he did not deſire me, but of myne owne deſireablenes I doe not ſpeake at all, much leſſe diſpute. 2. Will any man condemne me for expecting that he ſhould deſire me, with whom I ſhould be joyned, as Colleague, in ſuch a worke? 3. What could I ſay leſſe, or more mildely? I did not ſay, he oppoſed me, rejected me, circumvented me, or the like, but only, he did not deſire me. 4. VponUpon my uſe of the ſame word [certainly] in the ſecond Section he ſayd, it is againſt modeſty and conſcience, to pronounce ſo certainly touching the iſſue of things to come, and yet himſelfe uſeth the ſame confident aſſeveration in a caſe more improbable, as will appeare to any man, or to himſelfe, if he reduce his reaſoning and diſcourſe (to prove ſuch diſputes as I have uſed about myne owne deſireablenes, to be a want of modeſty or prudence) into a Syllogiſme.